Back in Junior High School, my boyfriend, Dave, had an arguement with another friend of his. They conducted it in a verbal Morse Code. I’m getting this incredeible sense of
-… . .— .- / …- …- “deja vu”, here’s the translator
Ack! My rant is to be buried at the end of this thread. Nevertheless…
I’ve gotten the Spiritus Mundi treatment before. His cowardly method is to attack your presentation, while avoiding your subject matter. In a GD thread he insulted me, my education, my college, and all but the womb that bore me. The man isn’t interested in anything you say- he is only cocerned with feeding his own superiourity by picking at every single little thing you say, and then insulting you for saying them. He isn’t really interested in debating, or refineing his opinion, or listening to others. His only delight is to be mean for the sake of being mean. Debating with him is a pointless enterprise.
I hope one day that dear Mundi matures enough to realize that even GD is a little bit cooperative. The idea is to think, learn, and seek understanding…not the borderline trollish behavoir of attacking other posters but holding no actual interest in the debate at hand.
In short, Spiritus Mundi can suck my gym sock.
Um, How does that work please? You claim that he doesn’t attack the position, but rather attacks your method of presentation and the poster personally. cite please? I’d like to see an example of Spiritis Mundi attacking the poster/presentation vs. the position. I’ve seen him around quite a bit, and while there are those in GD who make personal attacks, I’ve never seen one from him, so some evidence would be appreciated
erislover:
And I maintain that this is farcical bullshit. Precise meanings only become that when they are agreed upon.
I may say:
I have been most vague and imprecise in my metaphors and word choice, yet I think my meaning is perfectly clear and even poetically lucid.
I maintain that the arguing semantics is merely rationalizeing one’s own failure to communicate effectively.
even sven:
What you say is false, untrue, a cowardly attack by a miserable cretin!
If you would like to argue that Spiritus Mundi squashes idiotic jerkoffs who talk out their ass whenever possible, I will surely agree, though.
I’ve had heated and spirited debates and always found him to be a gentleman. In one notable thread we discussed the many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Physics as proof of God, conveyance of omnipotence, quantum wormholes, and how this all related to Spiritus Mundi’s burning but unrecquited lust for Salma Hayek!
It seemed to me that only cunning and good natured barbs or insults were traded, and what made the discussion fun was sticking rigorously to accepted physics theory.
If your ideas are so misbegotten and stillborn as not to stand up to the scrutiny of being picked apart by an honest, good-natured, but diligent thinker, than perhaps you should find a less demanding forum for their critique.
He has seen the light!
Excellent! I disagree, but now we can have a meaningful debate on the question
I stand corrected.
scylla, kabbes
Thanks for the character references. I believe even sven is angry that I challenged her bullshit here.
Even sven, since I agree with you that it is unseemly for your petulant whine about my character to be buried at the end of an argument based upon intellectual disagreement, I have taken the liberty of providing it a home of its own.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=77970
Oh, and scylla
I’m still waiting for those virtual particles to cooperate.
mmmmm . . . Salma
I meant wring not kabbes, of course. Well, I’ll thank kabbes, too, but I suppose I should wait until he actually gives me a character reference. I wouldn’t want to put words in th poor man’s mouth. Oh, no, absolutely not.
So, thanks wring. I claim the infirmities of age and a small screen font. It’s becoming difficult for me to tell one articulate, reasonable poster from another.
…ever since the first infamous exchange, duly linked.
Firstly, they make my own interventions appear briefer.
Secondly, I admit liking esoterics.
Thirdly, both are quite capable of admiting and engaging other points.
Have at it lads, I shall try to follow along when I can.
Hell, not only will I take being compared to kabbes, I’ll take being called ‘articulate & reasonable’ from you, too! (BTW - I personally blame all of my typos on my poor eyesight. Works for me)
Hence this entire fucking thread. Agreeing upon a definition. Showing why one definition was better than the other.
No.
So what does that say about one who is arguing about arguing about semantics? I leave you to fill in the gaps, since even without context this should be clear–even poetically lucid!
Well, there is a minimum creative and intellectual requirement to communicating effectively with me. Sorry you didn’t make the cut.
Not at all. There is no reason to think that a second order relationship should have any similarity to a first.
You have it almost reversed, scylla. Arguing semantics is an attempt to cure a failure of communication. If two people do not use language in the same way, it is an impediment to understanding. When two people want to communicate but recognize a semantic barrier they can:[ul]
[li] quit trying and blame “fluid language”[/li][li] explore the issue and try to adjust usage accordingly[/li][li] hammer at the possible meanings until a consensus forms[/ul][/li]Erl and I did not want to take the first option, we failed at teh second option, but we succeeded in the third (plus I got to call him lots of names and stuff, which provided a welcome catharctic release.)
Werks fer me.
Two simple Zen koans:[ul][li]Everything is Best[/li]
One day Banzan was walking through a market. He overheard a customer say to the butcher, “Give me the best piece of meat you have.” “Everything in my shop is the best,” replied the butcher. “You can not find any piece of meat that is not the best.” At these words, Banzan was enlightened.
[li]**The Real Way Is Not Difficult **[/li]
Joshu addressed an assembly of monks: “The Real Way is not difficult;, but it dislikes the Relative. If there is but little speech, it is about the Relative or it is about the Absolute. This old monk is not within the Absolute. Do you value this or not?” A monk said to him, “If you are not within the Absolute, how can you judge its value?” Joshu said, “Neither do I know that.” The monk argued, “Your Reverence, if you do not yet know, how is it that you say you are not within the Absolute?” Joshu said, “Your questioning is effective. Finish your worship and leave.”[/ul]What I still can’t figure out, though, is which one is the Zen Master – erl, or Spiritus?
Hmmm…I guess I better go pop some more popcorn.
Spiritus:
You forget option four. State your argument clearly in the first place.
Option five. Restate your argument to avoid the confusing term.
Penultimately this would be the absolute solution.
Five tons of flax.
Scylla
If language is fluid, then we couldn’t possibly have stated our position clearly in the first place, and a semantic debate had to ensue.
Not really, if language is fluid, because there will be, most likely, the same or similar degree of misunderstanding.
At any rate, had you read both threads, there were two simultaneous problems occurring. One, our disagreement on what I meant, or could mean, by “absolute.” That was resolved here. Two, the implications of closed frames. Language could be as loose as your understanding of both topics and still we wouldn’t not find a path through.
What makes you think I didn’t read both threads?
WHy would you say that something fluid can’t be clear?
If “There is no reason to think that a second order relationship should have any similarity to a first” then why should the physical properties of liquids apply past a first-level metaphor on the comprehension of language?
Jeezuz fucking Pete! Because howzabout maybe the one thing and the other have nothing to fucking do with each other!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi *
**
Hey, now. You just leave me the hell out of whatever freaked-out pyscho mind-fuck you have going on here.
And I’m not a damn babe, I’m a man you crazy asshole.
Seriously though, this thread makes the Weather Channel look really exciting! …'scuse me while I turn on the local forcast!